Line Out Music & the City at Night

Slog

News & Arts

@SEAshows
Twitter feed of Seattle shows on sale now

« Line Out Will Return at 11 am | Vangelis, Philosopher »

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Legal Matador Records Says Perfume Genius Intro Video Rejected By Youtube

Posted by Grant Brissey on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM

This 15-second "pre-roll ad" for the Perfume Genius album was reportedly rejected by Youtube, who allegedly stated:

The ad has been disapproved because it violates our Adult Image/Video Content policy. Per this policy, video content, audio, static imagery, and site content must be family safe. Any ads that contain non family safe material are disapproved. I noted to the team that the people in the video are not entirely unclothed, but the overall feeling of the video is one of a more adult nature, including promoting mature sexual themes and what appears to be nude content. As such, the video is non family safe. In order to have this video ad approved, you will need to bring it into compliance with our policy.

Matador Records' Nils Bernstein sent out and e-mail blast yesterday, adding "We asked twice for clarification about which part(s) were problematic and what edits they would require to bring it into compliance, and never received a response. I asked Bernstein for a contact for the rejection notice, to which he said: "We place all our banner and pre-roll ads through an intermediary company that works with Google/YouTube, and who forwarded us their rejection response despite this company's efforts to have the ad approved. However, that company doesn't want to comment, nor give us the email addresses of their Google contacts."

"I can't imagine that a "straight" version of this ad wouldn't pass. Our entire office (90% straight, for what it's worth) was genuinely surprised by this one. Especially given their impassioned pleas last week about free speech and anti-internet-censorship," Bernstein said.

UPDATE: The intermediary informs Bernstein that the Google press team "has been briefed," and provided a rather generic press e-mail. I've got one into them.

FacebookShare

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

This is not cool. You Tube just completely fucked up.

Posted by Estey on January 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I didn't realize YouTube had such a strict no-same-sex-hugging policy.

Posted by g on January 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

maybe they just think perfume genius is terrible.

Posted by cb on January 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

They need to upload a non-music video - no images or sounds from this song, but a message clearly identifying the artist, the song, and the controversy. Then they need to have an employee create a personal account, upload the actual video to youtube as a "response." The first video should inform viewers how to find it, and the actual video should be something that can be easily found with a search.

Posted by Matt from Denver on January 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Uhmm, oddly enough - the video "Hood" is up on Youtube which uses the 15 seconds of the preroll video and has been up since the 17th. I don't know what happened here, but clearly there is some disconnect with Youtube's censor-board and what they allow. They have also had gay soft-core teasers for adult films for years, et al. Probably just one person there that made a REALLY BAD CALL and they're scrambling to address it. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and leave them both up.
BTW - the full video is awesome. Who knew Arpad Miklos was such a gentle giant? Awww...

Posted by yerbamatty on January 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM

There was a video not too long ago that a couple of gay pornstars did (I can't remember who, exactly) highlighting the sexism in Youtube's obscenity policies. They'd had several videos flagged for inappropriate content, so they reproduced, move-for-move, a video of two girls dancing for the camera to show the crap women are allowed to get away with that they get flagged for. Anyone out there remember who that was and want to provide a link?

Posted by MacCrocodile

on January 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

@5 - I think the difference is that this is an ad that would run before other videos on youtube, so those watching it wouldn't have chosen to do so. They're not banning the video from youtube, just not allowing it to be an ad.(At least I think that's what "pre-roll ad" means.) Which is still totally lame and messed up, just not necessarily as internally inconsistent as it might seem.

Posted by Levislade

on January 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM

@7
For what it's worth, I found the ad ridiculously sappy and sentimental.
I did not, however, find it offensive, nor did I find it any more ridiculously sappy and sentimental than dozens of 'straight' ads I've seen on television and in magazines in the last forty years.

I see lots of ads that I wouldn't choose to see. In fact, most of the ads I see are ads I wouldn't choose to see. I don't think this one should be censored.

Posted by Clayton on January 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

@6 — It's the Gender Equality series by thefourthcumming

Posted by Crazy Cat Guy's Husband on January 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

@9 - Ah yes. It was the Reese Rideout video I had seen, specifically.

Posted by MacCrocodile

on January 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM

That violates my own rule against immaculate facescaping.

Posted by gloomy gus on January 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM

@8 - Totally agreed. Not defending youtube, just explaining the difference between this pre-roll ad and a regular ol' youtube video.

Posted by Levislade

on January 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Does this mean it can't go on Metro Buses either because fundie terrorists might blow them all up?

As far as the ad vs. youtube video difference, I understand that but find it ridiculous. I see scantily-clad people (usually always women) in (often offensive) ads all the time using sex and the body as its selling point. On broadcast TV. The internet isn't FCC regulated, here, it's just Google. At first I thought: "faux pas by one employee" but that's making excuses. Google is wrong on this, and they better accept the ad and respond with a proper apology and an honest, non-PR explanation.

Posted by Captain Wiggette on January 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM